PART 1 of 2
January 19, 2010
John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, in their newly released book, Game Change, have reported the "racially insensitive" remarks of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made in private in 2008; that Also Known As (AKA) Obama "should run for President because he was 'light-skinned' and spoke with 'no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'”
These remarks have Republicans calling for Reid's resignation, following the precedent set when Trent Lott was forced to resign for making "racially insensitive" remarks at a birthday party thrown for Strom Thurmond in 2002.
At that time, as the Senator from Illinois, AKA stated that the Republicans "needed to 'drive Lott out' to show they 'stood for something.'" (source, Wall Street Journal)
What has AKA's response been to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's racially insensitive remarks?
On January 10, 2010, CBS Evening News ran a segment on the growing Reid controversy. CBS reported that AKA had "forgiven" Reid and continued by showing a clip of AKA's remarks, "There was nothing mean-spirited in what he had to say, and he's always been on the right side of the issues."
In case you are in shock, feel free to go back and read that again. Translated, what AKA said was that if you support AKA's Marxist agenda, it's okay if you make what are considered racially insensitive remarks.
This, of course, is a clear indication of the "principles of democracy" that AKA practices.
Democracy does not operate on the rule of law as does a constitutional republic—what the United States was established as by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, democracy runs on the passions, opinions and prejudices of those in power. Thus it is that it is not okay for Trent Lott to make racially insensitive remarks while it is okay for Harry Reid to do so as.
James Madison, author of Federalist Paper #10, had this to say about the state of democracy,
"From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole, a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
And people think our Founding Fathers were stupid. If they were, what can be said of the mental acuity of Americans today who, for the most part, do not recognize the Marxist agenda of AKA and his minions?
To ensure rule of law, to protect the American people from the passions, opinions and prejudices of the majority, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were written. Commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, their purpose was to establish equal access and equal protection under the law.
Under rule of law, if Trent Lott goes, so does Harry Reid. Under democracy, it's not okay for Trent Lott to make racially insensitive remarks but it is okay for Harry Reid to do so because he's pro-Marxist, anti-freedom.
Hypocrisy at its best!
What do you suppose would have happened if the Democrats had discovered that one of the executive branch agencies, under the direction of a Republican president, had contracted tax payer dollars to pay for the services of an individual to promote the President's agenda before a majority Republican Congress, both House and Senate?
Do you suppose the Democrats would have squealed like pigs about the unethical conduct, the corruption of the White House and Oval Office, the bipartisanship? Do you suppose they would have run, screaming, to the lamestream media demanding justice be done?
On May 19, 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), solicited a sole-source (non-competitive) contract with Jonathan Gruber of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The purpose of this sole-source contract? To provide …
"… technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform … ASPE requires a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform. The requirement includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal. This project is a continuation of work that Dr. Gruber is currnetly providing for ASPE." (as written)
You caught that little snafu, didn't you, "…derived from the President's health reform proposal?" In other words, Gruber was contracted as a consultant to AKA in cramming health care reform down the throats of both Congress and the American people. Gruber's admission of this was printed by a left-leaning media outlet, Politico.com:
"Gruber told POLITICO that he has told reporters of the contract 'whenever they asked' and noted that he formally disclosed that 'I am a paid consultant to the Obama Administration' in a form attached to his most recent, December 24 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, though it wasn't widely known by reporters on the beat."
The cost to the American taxpayers for this unethical expenditure? Only $392,600 (so far)!
Even left-leaning media outlets like The Huffington Post were outraged by this obviously unethical move by the White House on the taxpayer dime, pointing out the failure of Gruber to disclose that he was being paid by the executive branch and as a consultant to the Oval Office for his time promoting AKA's Deathcare Bill.
What many do not know is that Gruber was also instrumental in health care reform in Massachusetts, that great state in which Ted Kennedy—grand Pooh Bah of socialized medicine—lived, and that has been touted as a success story in healthcare reform. In the above noted contract, one of the reasons given for the sole-source contract with Gruber is,
"Dr. Gruber is uniquely positioned to provide the analytic work ASPE requires based on over 15 years of experience in health care and health policy. Dr. Gruber is a recognized expert in health policy in economics including being widely published in peer-reviewed academic and health policy literature on the effects of changes in health benefit designs on the cost of enrollment in health insurance. Moreover, in order to estimate the impacts, Dr. Gruber developed a proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model that has the flexibility to ascertain the distribution of changes in health care spending and public and private sector health care costs due to a large variety of changes in health insurance benefit design, public program eligibility criteria, and tax policy. This model has been used for other health reform proposal." (as written)
One of the places Gruber's "proprietary statistically sophisticated micro-simulation model" was used was in Massachusetts.
And how has that worked out? This article, at another left-leaning media outlet, makes it very apparent that while Gruber has carefully culled that which supports his claims, he has also ignored that which doesn't; namely, that over 21% of people in Massachusetts can no longer afford to go to the doctor because their upfront, out-of-pocket expenses are too great. According to the aforesaid article, Gruber defines "affordable" as follows:
"In considering affordability for a group, we need to establish a sensible benchmark whereby insurance is considered affordable if “most of” a group can afford it. We can disagree about what “most of” means, but it would be wrong to define “most of” only as “very close to 100%.”
In other words, "most of" could be anything over 50.01%; and if 49.99% of the people can't afford to go to the doctor because they can't afford the upfront costs, their healthcare, by Gruber's definition, is still "affordable."
This is what Senator Patty Murray, D-WA, has claimed, regarding healthcare reform,
"As a member of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee I am currently helping to craft a health care reform bill that makes health care more affordable, protects your choice of doctors and treatments and ensures that all Americans can get quality care when they need it.
"We know that the rising cost of care is sapping our productivity, hurting our businesses and draining state and federal resources. In fact, health care reform may well be the best economic stimulus plan we could pass. "
Sounds really good until one understands how "affordable" is defined.
Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA, had this to say on December 24, 2009:
“Getting health care costs under control is our first order of business … This bill contains key provisions I introduced in committee that will significantly cut costs in Washington state and across the country.”
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Who will benefit from the "significantly cut costs" and the making of health care "more affordable" is carefully left to one's imagination. Quite obviously, considering how "affordable" is defined, the "who will benefit" isn't the individual who needs health care but cannot afford the upfront costs. And quite obviously, the upfront costs pans out to significantly higher deductibles. For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
� 2010 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com